The recent political initiatives from the both sides have destroyed the first achievements of the Ukrainian-Polish dialogue on mutual repentance, forgiveness and commemoration of the innocent victims killed during the conflict in 1940s: Ukrainians and Poles. The quest for reconciliation has been reflected in a number of joint statements: by the Presidents of Ukraine and Poland ‘On Concorde and Reconciliation’ on May 21, 1997; by the Parliaments of Ukraine and Poland on the 60th Anniversary of the Volyn Tragedy on July 10, 2003; by the Presidents of Ukraine and Poland ‘On Reconciliation on the 60th Anniversary of the Volyn Tragedy’ on July 11, 2003; by the Greek-Catholic bishops of Ukraine and Roman-Catholic bishops of Poland on the Act of mutual forgiveness and reconciliation on June 2005; by the Presidents of Ukraine and Poland on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Wisla event on April 27, 2007; by the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church and the Roman-Catholic Church on the 70th anniversary of the Volyn crime on June 28, 2013.

Article 2 of the Law on fighters proclaims that Ukraine ‘considers as legal all forms and methods of struggle for its independence in the twentieth century’. This is a dangerous statement as it means that the state is not ready to admit its past wrongdoings and condemn them. On the contrary, to preserve the positive image of fighters Ukraine will hold responsible those who ‘publicly display a disrespectful attitude’ toward them and ‘publicly deny the legitimacy of the struggle for the independence of Ukraine’.

It should be noted that the Law does not determine the meaning of ‘disrespectful attitude’ nor does it specify the liability measures to be used. Literally, it says this: ‘Ukrainian nationals, foreigners and stateless persons who publicly express disrespect for those stipulated in Article 1 of this law … bear liability in accordance with current Ukrainian legislation. Public denial of the legitimacy of the struggle for Ukraine’s independence in the twentieth century is deemed desecration of the memory of fighters for Ukraine’s independence in the twentieth century, denigration of the dignity of the Ukrainian people and is unlawful.’

Due to its unclear wording the practical legal application of the Law is quite problematic. Yet, it is still able to suppress questions about crimes committed by ‘fighters’ – their collaboration with Nazis, involvement in extermination of the Poles and Jews. The Law on fighters has made it impossible to continue an open Ukrainian-Polish dialogue on the legacy of World War II, particularly, the Volyn events: a claim that the OUN and the UPA participated in murders of Polish civilians in the Volyn region can be deemed as ‘denigration’ of the Ukrainian people.

There is a danger that the current Polish initiatives to penalize the denial of the crimes committed by the Ukrainian Nationalist in 1943-5 will push Ukraine to use the Criminal Code to protect ‘dignity of fighters’. Following the destructive logic of memory wars Ukraine can realize unclear threat of punishment for ‘disrespectful attitude’ by actual criminal sanctions. It is easier to start a war than to end it, and that includes memory wars…

The Polish-Ukrainian conflict on memory is a deplorable result of political abuse of history from both sides: the two countries strive to monopolize the past to glorify their history and protect their national dignity. They simplify complex events to construct historical narratives which describe themselves as heroes or victims but never perpetrators. Thereby, both states violate basic principles of freedom of speech.

The Polish-Ukrainian case proves well that a clash of historical narratives should not be solved with the use of criminal sanctions. Criminal law, by its very nature, is an ill-suited moderator for public discussion on history but a powerful and dangerous weapon in memory wars which pose a threat of fueling real conflicts in the future. The escalation of memory wars should challenge Europe to reconsider its principles of mnemopolitics including a ban of the use criminal sanctions as a means of politics of memory.

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will be deleted.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. In case of doubt comments will be published after an email to the stated address has been answered. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.Antworten abbrechen

Verfassungsblog is a journalistic and academic forum of debate on topical events and developments in constitutional law and politics in Germany, the emerging common European constitutional space and beyond.